DRAFT Sustainability Appraisal Report for the Emerging Local Plan ...

the Core Strategy have identified support for the location of new homes within urban areas,
including in the town centres.
16.137 It is important to note that the Borough allocations are not set at a maximum level, and
where there is an identified local housing need, and other sustainability criteria can be met,
national policy encourages the provision of increased numbers of dwellings. No provision has
been made for windfall sites in the Plan but they are an integral part of supply and will need
to taken into account as part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the Community
Infrastructure Levy and when recognising the requirements for the Thames Basin Special
Protection Area (TBHSPA).
16.138 With regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a
neutral impact. It is noted that the impact on RSF 14 (the reuse of urban land) is undermined
by the green field alternatives, whilst the impact on air quality is adverse (RSF 16) for all
alternatives. There is again an adverse impact on RSF 20 – the impact on the natural and
heritage environment. The need to accommodate growth will have a consequence for all the
receptors, but the impact of the alternatives is not different for planned or unplanned
growth.
16.139 The overall conclusion is that a single large sites would bring greater benefits by acting as a
focus of infrastructure provision. The preferred alternative that best fits this requirement is
LP02. This involves the release of the DERA site from the green belt.
16.140 This approach aims to deliver on average 161 units per annum between the years 2011 and
2026 based on extant permissions; windfall estimates and includes 1,500 units on DERA. The
preferred approach overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the
alternatives
16.141 The Local Plan team rejects five alternatives to Policy LP02, these were:
LP02‐A1: Unplanned ‐ 145 p/a is based on extant permissions and windfall in urban
area so no alternatives. Based on the NPPF approach;
LP02‐A2: ‐ 161 p/a comprises 900 units with extant permission, and 1,500 units on
identified (inc reserve sites) and windfall site sites. The sub‐alternative is based on
how to accommodate the 1,500 units;
o LP02‐A2(a): 1,500 units on green belt urban edge sites (Padd Farm, Wick Road,
Virginia Water, and others in SHLAA);
o LP02‐A2(b): 1,500 units on reserve sites and windfall sites; and,
o LP02‐A2(c) 2400 units on DERA.
LP02‐A3: Planned 550 units p/a;
o LP02‐A3(a): A green belt solution based on DERA and all SHLAA green belt sites;
and,
o LP02‐A3(b): An urban area solution based on extant permissions, reserve sites
and windfall sites.
Location Policy 3 (LP03) – Development in Addlestone Urban Area
16.142 There are a number of issues that are relevant to all the urban area policies. These have been
captured in Box 3.
Box 3 – Common Urban Area Development Issues
During the Issues and Options stage, there was strong support for retaining, protecting, and enhancing
the existing centres within the borough. This, along with the findings of the retail study, indicates that
there is no need to pursue policies that promote out of town development.
The retail study clearly demonstrates that the three main centres provide a day to day focus and that
this should be enhanced, rather than seeking large scale retail development that would result in the
towns changing to higher order centres in the retail hierarchy.
This approach was supported by the SEP, which indicates that individuality is the key to the success of
market plans, and so it is important to focus upon strengthening what each town has to offer. It is
therefore not necessary to promote policies that would seek to create major retail expansion of our
retail centres to elevate a centre in the retail hierarchy.
Page | 219 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013